NCAA APR Report is out

[jkwuc89]

ESPN is reporting (http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/news/story?id=2857999) that the latest NCAA APR report is out. None of the BCS teams received a warning letter.

[MikeInClifton]

More articles -

From the NCAA (http://www.ncaasports.com/story/10162941)


What is the Academic Progress Rate? (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070502/SPORTS/70502048)


Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/blogs/storyview.php?StoryID=20070502-064508-9408r&TopicsID=discourse)


DeCourcy (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=202748)


NCAA academic report hits black schools (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/college/4769895.html)

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

More articles -

From the NCAA (http://www.ncaasports.com/story/10162941)


What is the Academic Progress Rate? (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070502/SPORTS/70502048)


Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/blogs/storyview.php?StoryID=20070502-064508-9408r&TopicsID=discourse)


DeCourcy (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=202748)


NCAA academic report hits black schools (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/college/4769895.html)

Decourcy (the biggest media ***** of them all) still slinging the Huggins 0% Grad Rate mud when 35 UC graduates between 1990 and 2005 prove him wrong.

Mike Decourcy is a total moron.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

More articles -

From the NCAA (http://www.ncaasports.com/story/10162941)


What is the Academic Progress Rate? (http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070502/SPORTS/70502048)


Washington Times (http://washingtontimes.com/blogs/storyview.php?StoryID=20070502-064508-9408r&TopicsID=discourse)


DeCourcy (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=202748)


NCAA academic report hits black schools (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/college/4769895.html)

And regarding the Wash Post article, UC already took the scholarship penalty in 2006-07 season. Old news, warmed over, served as fresh meat.

[ralph1950]

In the Sports section today The Enquirer confirms that Bob Huggins players inablility to graduate cost UC a scholarship, which fortunately, they were able to take the penalty this past season.

[ralph1950]

Mike DeCourcy is one of the nation's most respected college basketball writers. He is not a moron. He writes what is fact. Under the NCAA guidelines that applied to all Division 1 schools, over 300, Bob Huggins has one of the worst graduation rates, and that is a fact that is undisputable.

Decourcy (the biggest media ***** of them all) still slinging the Huggins 0% Grad Rate mud when 35 UC graduates between 1990 and 2005 prove him wrong.

Mike Decourcy is a total moron.

[Bearcat_DF]

rALph,

Only you would take the bite on that bait - I think we all know that the reason the APR was so low was because of the chaotic change over with coaches. Certainly White and Muhammed didn't help that APR, but if I remember correctly that was on AK's watch. Add in Dominic Tilford and Devan Downey leaving - that is 6 points right there.

Not that the sunshine is out, you look on the sunny side of life . . .

Go Cats!
DF

[mlb]

Decourcey has been one of Huggins' biggest proponents, including ripping the administration when they dumped him. I fully agree with most of what I've read, Huggins' players did screw over UC by transferring out or even worse failing out of school.

[jkwuc89]

Personally, I think Mike D. is one of the best college writers out there. I certainly value his opinion over many other so-called experts.

Regarding the 0% graduation rate, we all know that the NCAA rules were flawed when this rate came out. And the NCAA is trying to improve things with the APR. Is the APR perfect? Certainly not. And it would not surprise me at all if the NAACP (and it various affiliated organizations) take the NCAA to task regarding the low APR scores reported by many of the so-called black colleges.

Going forward, I think Coach Cronin's emphasis on academics and graduation will allow UC to improve its basketball APR. And it was certainly smart to take the scholarship hit this past season.

[MikeInClifton]

In the Sports section today The Enquirer confirms that Bob Huggins players inablility to graduate cost UC a scholarship, which fortunately, they were able to take the penalty this past season.

Actually, Huggins didnt graduate a single player in his 17 years here.


He didnt take any of their tests for them.
He didnt do any of their homework.
He didnt help any with their exam preparation.

The players graduated - or didnt graduate - themselves.

With this in mind, Mick wont graduate a single player either.

[MikeInClifton]

Huggins' players did screw over UC by transferring out or even worse failing out of school.

In the players minds, the administration did a bit of 'screwing', before the players did any.

[MikeInClifton]

College basketball coaches long have said that it's almost impossible to influence a player to finish the semester when he wants to begin training for his professional career. Syracuse Coach Jim Boeheim said he recommends that players try to graduate within 3 1/2 years, but even that plan does not account for non-seniors who choose to leave in the middle of the spring semester.

"You can't do anything," Boeheim said yesterday. "If one or two kids leave, it doesn't take much to be below 925. Who do we hold responsible? How do you hold the kid or the coach responsible? If you have three or four great players at once, how do you have an APR? You might have a chance to win something big, but your APR is bad."

Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/02/AR2007050202776.html?hpid=moreheadlines)

[MikeInClifton]

Waivers also are granted for coaching changes. Iowa State University’s men’s basketball program lost two scholarships as a result of a poor APR score, but the NCAA has granted the team a conditional waiver from further penalties because six athletes left after a coaching change in 2006. To avoid future penalties, the team has to show progress toward moving above the 925 mark.

The two-time champion University of Florida men’s basketball team recorded a 917 APR, but because of the squad-size adjustment isn’t eligible for contemporaneous penalties this year. The runner-up Ohio State University men’s basketball team had an even worse score, 902, but also avoided immediate penalties for the same reason.

Inside Higher Education (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/05/03/apr)

[mlb]

In the players minds, the administration did a bit of 'screwing', before the players did any.

And that is something I agree with. I'm just of the opinion that the article was not that anti-Huggins as some people thought.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

In the Sports section today The Enquirer confirms that Bob Huggins players inablility to graduate cost UC a scholarship, which fortunately, they were able to take the penalty this past season.

Actually, untrue. The turmoil caused by his abrupt departure in 2005 caused the APR score to plummet into the upper 700 range in 2006.

UC had a 917 APR score in 2004 under Huggins.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Mike DeCourcy is one of the nation's most respected college basketball writers. He is not a moron. He writes what is fact. Under the NCAA guidelines that applied to all Division 1 schools, over 300, Bob Huggins has one of the worst graduation rates, and that is a fact that is undisputable.

Decourcy is an *****, Al. That's a plain fact.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Personally, I think Mike D. is one of the best college writers out there. I certainly value his opinion over many other so-called experts.

Regarding the 0% graduation rate, we all know that the NCAA rules were flawed when this rate came out. And the NCAA is trying to improve things with the APR. Is the APR perfect? Certainly not. And it would not surprise me at all if the NAACP (and it various affiliated organizations) take the NCAA to task regarding the low APR scores reported by many of the so-called black colleges.

Going forward, I think Coach Cronin's emphasis on academics and graduation will allow UC to improve its basketball APR. And it was certainly smart to take the scholarship hit this past season.

Decourcy flat out LIED in his article. Huggins graduated AT LEAST ONE player (and usually several) EVERY YEAR between 1990 and 2005. He graduated 35 in 16 seasons. Those numbers should his Zero Grad Rate assertion to be false.

Very simple math. You can't be ZERO if you graduated ONE OR MORE EVERY YEAR.

[jon b]

Decourcy flat out LIED in his article. Huggins graduated AT LEAST ONE player (and usually several) EVERY YEAR between 1990 and 2005. He graduated 35 in 16 seasons. Those numbers should his Zero Grad Rate assertion to be false.

Very simple math. You can't be ZERO if you graduated ONE OR MORE EVERY YEAR.

Doesn't the article say to "ask BH about the dubious 0%"? I think Mike D is questioning it with the word dubious. I know I have read many articles y him where he has said BH graduated players and the system was flawed. Not sure why he'd change now or why you are reading it as a slam.

[ralph1950]

DeCourcy is one of the most respected College Basketball writers. He did not LIE, he was 100% accurate. The NCAA used a Federal Government formula to determine Graduation rates which gives each incoming freshman 6 years to graduate. Bob Huggins players graduation rate was often 0% under the formula. The NCAA used the same formula for all 300+ Division 1 schools, therefore, the formula is an accurate comparison tool. When you look at UC's grad rate while Huggins was coach compared to the other 299+ D1 schools under the formula, UC's is one of the worst. It is easy to rationalize away the results if you are a BH apoligist which many are, but the bottom line is that the formula shows, when you compare UC's results to that of the other 299+ D1 schools under the same formula, that Bob Huggins was a lot more interested in keeping players eligible to play than having them graduate.

Decourcy flat out LIED in his article. Huggins graduated AT LEAST ONE player (and usually several) EVERY YEAR between 1990 and 2005. He graduated 35 in 16 seasons. Those numbers should his Zero Grad Rate assertion to be false.

Very simple math. You can't be ZERO if you graduated ONE OR MORE EVERY YEAR.

[mlb]

DeCourcy is one of the most respected College Basketball writers. He did not LIE, he was 100% accurate. The NCAA used a Federal Government formula to determine Graduation rates which gives each incoming freshman 6 years to graduate. Bob Huggins players graduation rate was often 0% under the formula.

Actually, I think he had 1 year where it was ever 0%. That would not qualify as "often". As 1958 stated, it obviously was not really 0% due to the Juco's that were graduating, but it was a flawed formula. BH had his issues, if you stated facts instead of making things up or embellishing the truth people probably wouldn't have an issue with you, Al.

[jon b]

Actually, I think he had 1 year where it was ever 0%. That would not qualify as "often". As 1958 stated, it obviously was not really 0% due to the Juco's that were graduating, but it was a flawed formula. BH had his issues, if you stated facts instead of making things up or embellishing the truth people probably wouldn't have an issue with you, Al.

I have decided to use a new system, also one where everyone is held to the same standards. I looked at all colleges who graduated their players within 2 years. None of them did, so I gave everyone a zero% rate. I believe this is accurate and thus, all schools are equal when it comes to graduating players. Please note that these are facts and I am not trying to put any spin on them.

[ralph1950]

Not true Mick, here are the Federal Department of Education graduation rates used by the NCAA to compare UC with all other D1 schools for the Bob Huggins era to date, his era starts with the 1995 class and will continue until 2011 as his last freshman recruiting class was the 2005 year.

1995 0%; 1996 0%; 1997 0%; 1998 33%; 1999 16%; 2000 0%; 2001 50%; 2002 0%; 2003 33%; 2004 0%; 2005 33%; 2006 33%

Actually, I think he had 1 year where it was ever 0%. That would not qualify as "often". As 1958 stated, it obviously was not really 0% due to the Juco's that were graduating, but it was a flawed formula. BH had his issues, if you stated facts instead of making things up or embellishing the truth people probably wouldn't have an issue with you, Al.

[ralph1950]

Yes the old "flawed formula" statement used by Bob Huggins apoligists to rationalize away his problems because he won games.
There is nothing "flawed" about the formula that was developed by the Dept. of Education, not by the NCAA. The exact same formula was applied to all 300+ NCAA Division 1 schools, it is not a formula that applies to UC only. Under BH, UC's grad rate was among, and continues to be among, the worst of the 300+ D1 schools. Hoewever, he did win 399 games.

[mlb]

Fine Al, but then look at the rest of the numbers. ~30 graduates in 16 years at UC. Not a great number by any means, but much better than those graduation numbers suggest. How many other guys went to the NBA early and never completed their degree? Or left in the spring quarter to prepare for the NBA? Personally, those numbers interest me more than anything else. I'm guessing he was in the neighborhood of 3 graduates/ guys leaving for the professional leagues per season. That is not bad, IMO. If I had been offered the kind of money they were going to get by leaving college I would have done it too!

[qsilvr2531]

I have decided to use a new system, also one where everyone is held to the same standards. I looked at all colleges who graduated their players within 2 years. None of them did, so I gave everyone a zero% rate. I believe this is accurate and thus, all schools are equal when it comes to graduating players. Please note that these are facts and I am not trying to put any spin on them.

I'm pretty sure you understand the difference between expecting students to graduate from a 4 year program in 6 years, and expecting students to graduate from a 4 year program in 2 years. I think the complaints that the NCAA rate doesn't include players leaving for the NBA are valid, but the complaints that 6 years isn't long enough aren't.

[MikeInClifton]

I have decided to use a new system, also one where everyone is held to the same standards. I looked at all colleges who graduated their players within 2 years. None of them did, so I gave everyone a zero% rate. I believe this is accurate and thus, all schools are equal when it comes to graduating players. Please note that these are facts and I am not trying to put any spin on them.


I have a new system too. Its called the Success Rate.
If you acheive your goal of graduating from college, you get full points allowable.
If you acheive your goal of playing a professional sport, you get full points allowable.
If you get both, you get full points allowable.
If you get either, you should thank the University you attend for the opportunity to prepare you for the career you have chosen.

In my Success Rate system, Myron Hughes, Roger McClendon, Alex Meacham, John Meeker, Jamaal Lucas, Jason Maxiell, Kenyon Martin, DerMarr Johnson, Greg Oden, Carmelo Anthony and a zillion other players all get the same number of points. Congratulations gentlemen!!

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Actually, I think he had 1 year where it was ever 0%. That would not qualify as "often". As 1958 stated, it obviously was not really 0% due to the Juco's that were graduating, but it was a flawed formula. BH had his issues, if you stated facts instead of making things up or embellishing the truth people probably wouldn't have an issue with you, Al.

As I said, at least 1 Bearcat graduated every year from 1990 through 2005. It was never 0. The true grad rate was about 40% - not great, not zero.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Yes the old "flawed formula" statement used by Bob Huggins apoligists to rationalize away his problems because he won games.
There is nothing "flawed" about the formula that was developed by the Dept. of Education, not by the NCAA. The exact same formula was applied to all 300+ NCAA Division 1 schools, it is not a formula that applies to UC only. Under BH, UC's grad rate was among, and continues to be among, the worst of the 300+ D1 schools. Hoewever, he did win 399 games.

It IS flawed, Al.

It excludes JuCo transfers who graduated. It excludes D1 transfers who graduated. It excludes walk-ons who earned scholarships and graduated. And it excludes anyone who took longer than 6 years.

Michael Jordan went back to UNC in the offseason and eventually graduated. It took longer than 6 years. The NCAA doesn't consider him a UNC graduate.

Huggins graduated 35 players in 16 years, about 40% of his UC lettermen.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Not true Mick, here are the Federal Department of Education graduation rates used by the NCAA to compare UC with all other D1 schools for the Bob Huggins era to date, his era starts with the 1995 class and will continue until 2011 as his last freshman recruiting class was the 2005 year.

1995 0%; 1996 0%; 1997 0%; 1998 33%; 1999 16%; 2000 0%; 2001 50%; 2002 0%; 2003 33%; 2004 0%; 2005 33%; 2006 33%

Those % only count HS recruits who entered UC on scholarship and graduated in 6 years. They EXCLUDE JuCo recruits, D1 transfers, walk-ons who earned scholarships, and anyone who took longer than 6 years to graduate.

I'll give you 2 examples, Al. I'll keep it as simple as I can for you.

The 2001 recruiting class graduated all 6 players. 3 were JuCo's - 1 was HS recruit - and 2 were walk-ons who earned scholarships. All 6 (100%) graduated from UC.

The 2002 class graduated 3 of its players. How can the rate be zero???

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

DeCourcy is one of the most respected College Basketball writers. He did not LIE, he was 100% accurate. The NCAA used a Federal Government formula to determine Graduation rates which gives each incoming freshman 6 years to graduate. Bob Huggins players graduation rate was often 0% under the formula. The NCAA used the same formula for all 300+ Division 1 schools, therefore, the formula is an accurate comparison tool. When you look at UC's grad rate while Huggins was coach compared to the other 299+ D1 schools under the formula, UC's is one of the worst. It is easy to rationalize away the results if you are a BH apoligist which many are, but the bottom line is that the formula shows, when you compare UC's results to that of the other 299+ D1 schools under the same formula, that Bob Huggins was a lot more interested in keeping players eligible to play than having them graduate.

He LIED. UC graduated at least one player every year from 1990 thru 2005.

He L-I-E-D, Al.

[jon b]

I'm pretty sure you understand the difference between expecting students to graduate from a 4 year program in 6 years, and expecting students to graduate from a 4 year program in 2 years. I think the complaints that the NCAA rate doesn't include players leaving for the NBA are valid, but the complaints that 6 years isn't long enough aren't.

Do you know the average time it takes to obtain a degree from a "4-year" (your words) program?

Do you know if JUCO's who graduate within the 6 years, or even the "4-year"s for that matter count?

Do you know if transfers who graduate within the 6 years, or even the "4-year"s for that matter count?

Do you know if a student leaves without a degree (oh let's say to make 100's of thousands or even millions to play basketball), but then comes back and completes the degree after the 6-year deadline counts?

I know the answer to all of these. Anyone with half a brain is well-aware that the Dept. of Ed stats were and still are very flawed as the NCAA applies them. Anyone who thinks otherwise either has an agenda or nothing approaching half a brain. The formula should be real simple. Count the graduates. Why do special rules need to apply?

[qsilvr2531]

I know the answers to all of your questions except the first one, which I'd very much like to know. Please tell me. I'm not sure it is really relevent, but it would still be interesting. The average time it takes to complete the degree doesn't really influence the grad rate comparisons, as the 6 year standard applies to all schools. 6 years is not an arbitrary number (just as your 2 year choice wasn't arbitrary). Grad rates are a tool for comparison, not an absolute statement of value. Graduating students at a 20% rate isn't bad in and of itself, it's only bad in comparison to other schools. But using 6 years as the standard is NOT a problem with the system, as your 2 year example seemed to imply. Really, the biggest problem with the way the NCAA applies the current standards is the small sample size involved with athletic cohorts (except football). It takes about 10 years to get a statistically relevent sample for an individual sport (again, except football) and that makes the measurement fairly useless. 0% graduation rates usually happen because the cohorts only have 1 or 2 people in them. When you have 2 in the cohort

As to why "special rules" need to apply, how does your "just count the graduates" measure actually work as an assessment measure? We don't really know the graduation rate until either every student has either died or graduated (this is a typical problem in survival analysis, which is what you are proposing). The goal is to assess quality, and the 6 year point is a reasonable tradeoff between allowing for students to change majors or delay graduation (or whatever else causes the 4 year program to turn into a 6 year task) and allowing for a fast enough turnaround to allow decision makers to make use of the information. Your choice of "count the graduates" isn't terribly usefull in this regard.

[qsilvr2531]

The 2001 recruiting class graduated all 6 players. 3 were JuCo's - 1 was HS recruit - and 2 were walk-ons who earned scholarships. All 6 (100%) graduated from UC.

The 2002 class graduated 3 of its players. How can the rate be zero???

The 2001 and 2002 grad rates that were posted refer to the 1994 and 1995 recruiting classes.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

The 2001 and 2002 grad rates that were posted refer to the 1994 and 1995 recruiting classes.

No, they don't.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

I know the answers to all of your questions except the first one, which I'd very much like to know. Please tell me. I'm not sure it is really relevent, but it would still be interesting. The average time it takes to complete the degree doesn't really influence the grad rate comparisons, as the 6 year standard applies to all schools. 6 years is not an arbitrary number (just as your 2 year choice wasn't arbitrary). Grad rates are a tool for comparison, not an absolute statement of value. Graduating students at a 20% rate isn't bad in and of itself, it's only bad in comparison to other schools. But using 6 years as the standard is NOT a problem with the system, as your 2 year example seemed to imply. Really, the biggest problem with the way the NCAA applies the current standards is the small sample size involved with athletic cohorts (except football). It takes about 10 years to get a statistically relevent sample for an individual sport (again, except football) and that makes the measurement fairly useless. 0% graduation rates usually happen because the cohorts only have 1 or 2 people in them. When you have 2 in the cohort

As to why "special rules" need to apply, how does your "just count the graduates" measure actually work as an assessment measure? We don't really know the graduation rate until either every student has either died or graduated (this is a typical problem in survival analysis, which is what you are proposing). The goal is to assess quality, and the 6 year point is a reasonable tradeoff between allowing for students to change majors or delay graduation (or whatever else causes the 4 year program to turn into a 6 year task) and allowing for a fast enough turnaround to allow decision makers to make use of the information. Your choice of "count the graduates" isn't terribly usefull in this regard.

UC graduates students (overall) at 50% rate whereas Huggins graduated 40% of his players over 16 years.

So there you go - slightly fewer than half of UC students graduate within 6 years by NCAA stats. That's part of their comparison - how athletes and general students graduate (%) per school.

[jon b]

But using 6 years as the standard is NOT a problem with the system, as your 2 year example seemed to imply. Really, the biggest problem with the way the NCAA applies the current standards is the small sample size involved with athletic cohorts (except football).

I agree completely.

As to why "special rules" need to apply, how does your "just count the graduates" measure actually work as an assessment measure? We don't really know the graduation rate until either every student has either died or graduated (this is a typical problem in survival analysis, which is what you are proposing). The goal is to assess quality, and the 6 year point is a reasonable tradeoff between allowing for students to change majors or delay graduation (or whatever else causes the 4 year program to turn into a 6 year task) and allowing for a fast enough turnaround to allow decision makers to make use of the information. Your choice of "count the graduates" isn't terribly usefull in this regard.

It is more useful than the NCAA stat that actually does not count graduates within the 6 year rule. When a school graduates 6 players one year and 3 the next and is getting 0% or low numbers overall, that is a problem. Simply because my flawed system (agree it is flawed also) counts them, it is better. I think the APR, while not perfect, is much better, but I cannot wait to see what happens among the historically black colleges and the fallout from it.

I sent you a PM last night that further explains my reasoning, whether it is flawed or not! :)

[jon b]

Quick search and I found two reports that discuss further why I have an issue with the 6-year beyond the fact it does not count all graduates. It makes it seem as if it is an apple to apple comparison and does not take into account "diploma mill" colleges.

This first link is to a PowerPoint that shows, not all students are created equal. This is one of the biggest issues in our society that is mostly unknown. We are not creating enough qualified scientists and engineers and I think if you look at this you can see why.

http://www2.edtrust.org/NR/rdonlyres/9DC20078-D181-487C-B715-8BAE914F468E/0/highschool2001.ppt

This is a report from a Charlotte based group about Charlotte schools (good comparison to most urban areas) with some comparisons against kids from suburban districts.

http://www.advocatesfored.org/publications/Pipeline/pipelinesummary.pdf

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

I know the answers to all of your questions except the first one, which I'd very much like to know. Please tell me. I'm not sure it is really relevent, but it would still be interesting. The average time it takes to complete the degree doesn't really influence the grad rate comparisons, as the 6 year standard applies to all schools. 6 years is not an arbitrary number (just as your 2 year choice wasn't arbitrary). Grad rates are a tool for comparison, not an absolute statement of value. Graduating students at a 20% rate isn't bad in and of itself, it's only bad in comparison to other schools. But using 6 years as the standard is NOT a problem with the system, as your 2 year example seemed to imply. Really, the biggest problem with the way the NCAA applies the current standards is the small sample size involved with athletic cohorts (except football). It takes about 10 years to get a statistically relevent sample for an individual sport (again, except football) and that makes the measurement fairly useless. 0% graduation rates usually happen because the cohorts only have 1 or 2 people in them. When you have 2 in the cohort

As to why "special rules" need to apply, how does your "just count the graduates" measure actually work as an assessment measure? We don't really know the graduation rate until either every student has either died or graduated (this is a typical problem in survival analysis, which is what you are proposing). The goal is to assess quality, and the 6 year point is a reasonable tradeoff between allowing for students to change majors or delay graduation (or whatever else causes the 4 year program to turn into a 6 year task) and allowing for a fast enough turnaround to allow decision makers to make use of the information. Your choice of "count the graduates" isn't terribly usefull in this regard.

It's simple. Count the number of UC lettermen from 1990 through 2005. Count the number who graduated. Divide graduates by lettermen to get Grad Rate of UC basketball players.

BTW the numbers are something like 35 / 85 = 41% graduated.

[qsilvr2531]

It is more useful than the NCAA stat that actually does not count graduates within the 6 year rule. When a school graduates 6 players one year and 3 the next and is getting 0% or low numbers overall, that is a problem. Simply because my flawed system (agree it is flawed also) counts them, it is better. I think the APR, while not perfect, is much better, but I cannot wait to see what happens among the historically black colleges and the fallout from it.

I sent you a PM last night that further explains my reasoning, whether it is flawed or not! :)

Honestly, I think we agree more than we disagree. The APR has its flaws but is a significant improvement, especially for the major revenue sports like basketball.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Honestly, I think we agree more than we disagree. The APR has its flaws but is a significant improvement, especially for the major revenue sports like basketball.

The APR measures nothing whatsover about grad rates. A player can take 12.0 hours per quarter and earn 2.0 average for 4 years to get 17 of 18 APR points (944 APR score) yet is nowhere near graduation.

[qsilvr2531]

The APR measures nothing whatsover about grad rates. A player can take 12.0 hours per quarter and earn 2.0 average for 4 years to get 17 of 18 APR points (944 APR score) yet is nowhere near graduation.

I know, it's more like a measure of retention than graduation. As I said, it has its flaws, but I still think it is an improvement over the previous system.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

I know, it's more like a measure of retention than graduation. As I said, it has its flaws, but I still think it is an improvement over the previous system.

The Graduation Success Rate (GSR, developed by NCAA) counts HS recruits, JC recruits, D1 transfers, and walk-ons who earn scholarships.

The APR is not an improvement over GSR.

Why not simply measure How Many Of Your Seniors Graduate?

[Bearcat_DF]

Maybe the APR measures the right thing - good academic standing. It seems that a school should not get penalized for having a student athlete go off to make a living playing basketball when their eligibility is up. If they choose to come back fine, but if they are in good academic standing the whole time they are a student athlete, why is it a bad thing if they don't graduate?

Go Cats!
DF

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Maybe the APR measures the right thing - good academic standing. It seems that a school should not get penalized for having a student athlete go off to make a living playing basketball when their eligibility is up. If they choose to come back fine, but if they are in good academic standing the whole time they are a student athlete, why is it a bad thing if they don't graduate?

Go Cats!
DF

Well, I think it's important that most of them graduate.

The most successfull college coaches ever - Wooden, Rupp, Dean Smith, Knight, Coach K-ski - graduated 90% or more of their players.

Graduation goes hand-in-hand with basketball success.

[qsilvr2531]

The Graduation Success Rate (GSR, developed by NCAA) counts HS recruits, JC recruits, D1 transfers, and walk-ons who earn scholarships.

The APR is not an improvement over GSR.

Why not simply measure How Many Of Your Seniors Graduate?

The sample size issue is still a problem, even if you include JC, transfers and walk-ons. Even three year or four averages for a single sport (except football) typically include less than 20 students. With that kind of sample size, a 35% (or 75%) grad rate isn't significantly different from a 50% grad rate. And using a 4 year average leaves you with a 10 year lag in the calculations (GSR still uses the 6 year graduation criteria), which limits the usefullness of the statistic.

And by including those groups you can no longer compare the rates to the overall university stats (which only include incoming freshman). Tracking the relatively small number of transfers in an athletic program is pretty easy, especially with the restrictions the NCAA places on transfering.

Both measurements have flaws and both have their uses.

[ralph1950]

Yes the sample size is a problem and the formula is a problem but it is the same problem for all 300+ Division 1 schools. UC under Huggins, when compared to the other 300+ Division 1 schools was basically at rock bottom when it comes to graduating players.

[qsilvr2531]

The problem isn't the same for all 300+ Div I schools. You could argue it is the same for the top subest of schools, but students don't leave early for the NBA for the vast majority of those 300+ schools you mentioned. Just because a formula is applied equally does not make the formula unbiased.

[cpawfan]

Why does anyone care if the players graduate or not beyond using the numbers as a pissing match about Huggins?

[ralph1950]

If you take the 3 players who left early for the NBA, Don, Dermarr, and Ken out of the equation, UC under Huggs would still come out near rock bottom when compared to the other 300+ Division 1 schools. If your graduation rate is 0% for the 1999 freshman class of 3 and you remove two of them from the formula, instead of 0 for 3 you are 0 for 1 which is still 0%.

The problem isn't the same for all 300+ Div I schools. You could argue it is the same for the top subest of schools, but students don't leave early for the NBA for the vast majority of those 300+ schools you mentioned. Just because a formula is applied equally does not make the formula unbiased.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Yes the sample size is a problem and the formula is a problem but it is the same problem for all 300+ Division 1 schools. UC under Huggins, when compared to the other 300+ Division 1 schools was basically at rock bottom when it comes to graduating players.

Al, that's absolutely FALSE.

UC gradauated 41% of its players during the 1990 to 2005 era, or just below average in Men's basketball.

Please be accurate.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Why does anyone care if the players graduate or not beyond using the numbers as a pissing match about Huggins?

I think players who graduate are smarter and win more games. The 1992 and 93 Bearcat rosters, the 2000 and 2002 teams graduated well over half their players (in total).

Those were Huggs' best UC teams.

[qsilvr2531]

Al, that's absolutely FALSE.

UC gradauated 41% of its players during the 1990 to 2005 era, or just below average in Men's basketball.

Please be accurate.

How do you know that is just below average in Men's basketball? Getting UC's info isn't that tough, since most of us have followed them and know all the players, but how do you find the info for the other schools?

[qsilvr2531]

If you take the 3 players who left early for the NBA, Don, Dermarr, and Ken out of the equation, UC under Huggs would still come out near rock bottom when compared to the other 300+ Division 1 schools. If your graduation rate is 0% for the 1999 freshman class of 3 and you remove two of them from the formula, instead of 0 for 3 you are 0 for 1 which is still 0%.

Leaving early was just meant as an example. The point was that a formula can be applied equally and still be biased. Other areas of bias include jucos and semesters vs. quarters. UC recruited significantly more Juco players during the Huggins era, is on a quarter system that negatively impacts high level basketball academics due to the timing of exams and the NCAA tournament.

In your example of the 1999 class, the 0% is not statistically different from 100%. So what does it even tell us?

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Tom, how do you know that is just below average in Men's basketball? Getting UC's info isn't that tough, since most of us have followed them and know all the players, but how do you find the info for the other schools?

NCAA stats have given average APR, GSR, and Fed numbers the past few years.

And in UC's number, it gives the percentile rank. Add 'em up and average 'em.

Latest GSR from 2006 (for example) was 46% at UC.

http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/inst2006/140.pdf

GSR was 31% in 2005 (for example). Average all the UC GSR scores and you get around 40% score.

Not great, not zero, not the bottom of the barrel. Comparable to UC student grad rate (overall, not just athletes) of upper 40% range.

[qsilvr2531]

IC, I was thinking you were going back to 1990 for GSR data and comparing UC's to a national average.

You can't really compare the GSR and the student body federal rates, since the GSR includes non-freshmen. They aren't measuring the same thing anymore (that's one disadvantage of GSR).

Looking at this report (hopefully the link isn't to long):

http://www2.ncaa.org/portal/academics_and_athletes/education_and_research/academic_reform/gsr/gsrFiveYearTrends.pdf

Men's basketball is still below average on the GSR for the 95-98 and 96-99 cohorts. Average GSR for Men's Basketball was 58% and 59% during those years (compared to the federal rate of 44% and 45%). As you said, UC's was 31% and 46%.

[ralph1950]

Use any method you want and you will come up with the same result, Bob Huggins was only interested in keeping players eligible, he did not care if they graduated, only if they could play. This is why the media constantly brought up the 0% graduation, because Huggins does not represent what college basketball should be about. Bob cared only about winning and self promotion, and he did both well.

[jkwuc89]

Bob cared only about winning and self promotion, and he did both well.

Up until now, I've avoided getting into this thread but the statement quoted above is so inaccurate, I feel compelled to reply.

Did Coach Huggins care about winning? Certainly.
Did Coach Huggins care about self-promotion. I saw no evidence of this during his tenure at UC. I never say Coach Huggins explicitly or implicitly try to push his own persona in the interest of self-promotion. Quite the contrary actually. He seemed to avoid the media spotlight for the most part.

Coach Huggins also cared deeply about the players who played for him. Because of this, his players (with very few exceptions) have remained extremely loyal to him.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Use any method you want and you will come up with the same result, Bob Huggins was only interested in keeping players eligible, he did not care if they graduated, only if they could play. This is why the media constantly brought up the 0% graduation, because Huggins does not represent what college basketball should be about. Bob cared only about winning and self promotion, and he did both well.

Al, the facts:

Here are the (35) UC graduates/basketball lettermen from the Huggins era. Only (15) were 4-year scholarship players from HS.

But only 12 counted as UC graduate by NCAA method! Namely, HS recruits entering UC on scholarship and graduating within (6) years!

Levertis Robinson
Keith Starks
Andre Tate – JuCo
Steve Sanders – football scholarship, basketball walk-on
(1989 recruit) BJ Ward – JuCo
(1989 transfer) Jeff Scott – Div I transfer
(1990 recruit) Curtis Bostic
(1990 transfer) Anthony Buford – Div I transfer
(1990 recruit) Mike Reicheneker – JuCo
(1991 recruit) Erik Martin – JuCo
(1991 recruit) Terry Nelson – JuCo
(1992 recruit) Keith Gregor
(1993 recruit) Jackson Julson
(1994 transfer) Keith LeGree – Div I transfer
Brent Petrus – football scholarship, basketball walk-on
(1995 recruit) Ryan Fletcher
(1995 recruit) Melvin Levett
(1995 recruit) Rod Monroe – JuCo
(1995 recruit) Terrence Davis – JuCo
(1997) Alex Meacham – walk-on
(1998 recruit) Donald Little
(1999 recruit) Lenny Stokes (2 degrees)
(2000 recruit) Field Williams
(2000 recruit) Rod Flowers
(2000) Rodney Crawford – JuCo walk-on, earned scholarship
(2001 recruit) Jason Maxiell
(2001 recruit) Taron Barker – JuCo
(2001 recruit) Jimmy Hubbard (2 degrees) – JuCo
(2001 recruit) Derek Hollman – JuCo
(2001) Jamaal Lucas – walk-on, earned scholarship
(2001) John Meeker – walk-on, earned scholarship

(2002 recruit) Eric Hicks – 2006
(2002 recruit) Chadd Moore – 2006
(2002 recruit) Armein Kirkland – 2006
(1996 recruit) D’Juan Baker – JuCo (2006)

Totals = 35 graduates

(15) HS recruits
(12) JuCo recruits
(3) Div I transfers
(5) walk-ons who were on football scholly or earned basketball scholly

(27) blacks
(8) whites

[ralph1950]

Who cares! The only report that counts is the US Department of Education's adopted by the NCAA and reported on by the media, it is the only one that matters and gives the comparison of all 300+ NCAA Divison 1 schools under the same reporting method.


Here are the (35) UC graduates/basketball lettermen from the Huggins era. Only (15) were 4-year scholarship players from HS.

But only 12 counted as UC graduate by NCAA method! Namely, HS recruits entering UC on scholarship and graduating within (6) years!

Levertis Robinson
Keith Starks
Andre Tate – JuCo
Steve Sanders – football scholarship, basketball walk-on
(1989 recruit) BJ Ward – JuCo
(1989 transfer) Jeff Scott – Div I transfer
(1990 recruit) Curtis Bostic
(1990 transfer) Anthony Buford – Div I transfer
(1990 recruit) Mike Reicheneker – JuCo
(1991 recruit) Erik Martin – JuCo
(1991 recruit) Terry Nelson – JuCo
(1992 recruit) Keith Gregor
(1993 recruit) Jackson Julson
(1994 transfer) Keith LeGree – Div I transfer
Brent Petrus – football scholarship, basketball walk-on
(1995 recruit) Ryan Fletcher
(1995 recruit) Melvin Levett
(1995 recruit) Rod Monroe – JuCo
(1995 recruit) Terrence Davis – JuCo
(1997) Alex Meacham – walk-on
(1998 recruit) Donald Little
(1999 recruit) Lenny Stokes (2 degrees)
(2000 recruit) Field Williams
(2000 recruit) Rod Flowers
(2000) Rodney Crawford – JuCo walk-on, earned scholarship
(2001 recruit) Jason Maxiell
(2001 recruit) Taron Barker – JuCo
(2001 recruit) Jimmy Hubbard (2 degrees) – JuCo
(2001 recruit) Derek Hollman – JuCo
(2001) Jamaal Lucas – walk-on, earned scholarship
(2001) John Meeker – walk-on, earned scholarship

(2002 recruit) Eric Hicks – 2006
(2002 recruit) Chadd Moore – 2006
(2002 recruit) Armein Kirkland – 2006
(1996 recruit) D’Juan Baker – JuCo (2006)

Totals = 35 graduates

(15) HS recruits
(12) JuCo recruits
(3) Div I transfers
(5) walk-ons who were on football scholly or earned basketball scholly

(27) blacks
(8) whites[/QUOTE]

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Who cares! The only report that counts is the US Department of Education's adopted by the NCAA and reported on by the media, it is the only one that matters and gives the comparison of all 300+ NCAA Divison 1 schools under the same reporting method.


Here are the (35) UC graduates/basketball lettermen from the Huggins era. Only (15) were 4-year scholarship players from HS.

But only 12 counted as UC graduate by NCAA method! Namely, HS recruits entering UC on scholarship and graduating within (6) years!

Levertis Robinson
Keith Starks
Andre Tate – JuCo
Steve Sanders – football scholarship, basketball walk-on
(1989 recruit) BJ Ward – JuCo
(1989 transfer) Jeff Scott – Div I transfer
(1990 recruit) Curtis Bostic
(1990 transfer) Anthony Buford – Div I transfer
(1990 recruit) Mike Reicheneker – JuCo
(1991 recruit) Erik Martin – JuCo
(1991 recruit) Terry Nelson – JuCo
(1992 recruit) Keith Gregor
(1993 recruit) Jackson Julson
(1994 transfer) Keith LeGree – Div I transfer
Brent Petrus – football scholarship, basketball walk-on
(1995 recruit) Ryan Fletcher
(1995 recruit) Melvin Levett
(1995 recruit) Rod Monroe – JuCo
(1995 recruit) Terrence Davis – JuCo
(1997) Alex Meacham – walk-on
(1998 recruit) Donald Little
(1999 recruit) Lenny Stokes (2 degrees)
(2000 recruit) Field Williams
(2000 recruit) Rod Flowers
(2000) Rodney Crawford – JuCo walk-on, earned scholarship
(2001 recruit) Jason Maxiell
(2001 recruit) Taron Barker – JuCo
(2001 recruit) Jimmy Hubbard (2 degrees) – JuCo
(2001 recruit) Derek Hollman – JuCo
(2001) Jamaal Lucas – walk-on, earned scholarship
(2001) John Meeker – walk-on, earned scholarship

(2002 recruit) Eric Hicks – 2006
(2002 recruit) Chadd Moore – 2006
(2002 recruit) Armein Kirkland – 2006
(1996 recruit) D’Juan Baker – JuCo (2006)

Totals = 35 graduates

(15) HS recruits
(12) JuCo recruits
(3) Div I transfers
(5) walk-ons who were on football scholly or earned basketball scholly

(27) blacks
(8) whites[/QUOTE]

Anybody with an open mind should care. 35 players graduated but only 12 "count" per NCAA method you endorse.

I call BS on that approach.